Review: Will and Jaden Smith explore father-son dynamics against a science-fiction adventure backdrop in ‘After Earth’

“After Earth” is, all things considered, a fairly small-scale story, and the conscious decision to create such a large world and then focus on two characters almost exclusively feels at first like a mistake. Ultimately, though, the film reveals that its true intent is to create a boy’s adventure movie that externalizes the basic stresses and fears of parenthood, and its modest goals turn out to be an asset. This may not be the biggest bang for the buck this summer, but it’s lovely to see something that is sincere, thematically focused, and that ultimately works in a way I didn’t expect.

M. Night Shyamalan has entered the phase of his career where there is a certain amount of baggage that prevents a percentage of the audience (and the film press) from even remotely approaching a new film by him with an open mind. It’s been fascinating to watch the fall from newly-annointed genius in 1999 to openly-reviled punchline in 2013. While he courted a certain amount of that with his Newsweek cover story and his self-commissioned immolation-in-book-form “The Man Who Hears Voices” and his ludicrous “documentary” about the making of “The Village,” it is still discouraging to watch people spend weeks warming up for a new film of his by practicing their snark and trotting out their complaints about his prior work. At this point, Sony barely even acknowledged him in the marketing for this film, a clear indication that they were aware of the issue, and even so, I see people piling on already, and I’m baffled.

Maybe it’s the father-son act of Will and Jaden Smith that also has some people cracking their knuckles and sharpening their knives. Keep in mind, I’m not talking about people who have seen the film and didn’t like it, but the ramp up over the last few weeks where I’ve seen people who have absolutely not seen the film railing on it anyway. Whatever the case, it feels unfair to me. “After Earth” is very straightforward, and there is a sincerity to it that is easily mocked but also admirable in an age where almost everything has a sort of winking post-modern stance. There are certainly choices here that baffle me, like naming a character “Cypher Raige” or some of the dialogue that sounds like it comes out of a self-empowerment seminar, but for the most part, I think this is a strong example of a certain type of film that rarely gets made these days.

I’ve noticed that for the most part, there are films that are blatantly aimed at children and the “family” audience, and there are films that are aimed at grown-ups that are okay for kids to see as well, but there are very few films made that seem aimed at a young teen audience specifically. Now that there’s this “young adult” category, which feels to me like they’re essentially making grown-up films that are aged down slightly and angsted up enormously, it feels like they’re serving this audience but on a superficial level. In the ’80s, a film like “Young Sherlock Holmes” or “Explorers” or even “The Goonies” wasn’t given a label like “young adult” because no such thing existed. Instead, they were just films that happened to have young protagonists facing high concept situations, and “After Earth” seems like a movie that would be beloved by a generation of kids if it had come out between 1983 and 1989.

The things I liked about the film far outweigh the issues I had with it. The film deals with a big giant slice of history fairly quickly at the start of the film, explaining that when humans were forced to abandon Earth because it had become inhospitable, they took to the stars in search of another place that could support life. They found a home eventually, only to find themselves under attack from aliens who design a special creature that is bred only to kill humans. Blind by design, the creatures use the pheromones generated by fear to track their prey, and the reason Cypher Raige is revered as a hero is because he was the first person to master his own fear enough to be able to move as if invisible among the creatures, allowing him to kill them. His example led to an entire military discipline, and as the film opens, we see that his son Kitai (Jaden Smith) is unable to master all of the skills of a Ranger, leading to his failure to graduate just as his father returns from a mission.

Brief tangent: Sophie Okonedo and Zoe Kravitz play Will’s wife and daughter in the film, and they look so much like mother and daughter for real that I am hereby accusing somebody of real life key party rock star shenanigans. I’m not sure who, but It’s the only explanation.

Cypher agrees to take Kitai with him on a fairly simple transport trip, and things go horribly wrong. There’s a crash. There’s a clearly defined goal, something they need in order to survive, and there’s a test, and that’s pretty much it. The single most important thing you should know up front if you are harboring some ill will towards Shyamalan is that there’s no twist in the film. There’s no big reveal or paradigm shift, no dramatic last minute reversals. There is a long tradition of these sorts of science fiction films having big twists, so it wouldn’t have been out of character, but that’s just not the movie they made.

For the most part, this is a character drama wrapped in big action set pieces. When they crash, Cypher is injured in such a way that he’s out. He’s just not going to be able to do anything. It’s not about how much he wants it or what he’s willing to risk. He’s immobilized completely, and it’s getting worse the longer he’s like this. He can communicate with Kitai while he travels several miles to the torn-off tail section of their space ship in order to retrieve and activate an emergency beacon. There’s nothing more narratively complicated than that. The thing they were transporting turns out to be one of the beasts that can smell your fear, and it ends up stalking Kitai for a chunk of the movie, but they set that up early. That’s the whole reason the creature’s in the movie, or that they were created in the first place. This is all about a young man reaching the point where he’s not afraid of the world’s challenges, and his father’s experience watching his son struggle, hoping that the things he’s taught him are enough to keep him alive.

One sequence in particular struck me as a great example of theme-as-action, when the communication link between them goes down at an especially awkward moment, and while Cypher can see what’s happening, Kitai can’t hear him, and the father is forced to just observe and to hope that his son will make the right choices, do the right things. The film is structured more like “The Karate Kid” than it is like any twisty-turny precursor like “Planet Of The Apes” or episodes of “The Twilight Zone.” Don’t expect some sucker punch that has to do with Earth. The first third of this film almost feels like the closing credits of “The Other Guys,” where the subtext is laid out so starkly that it no longer qualifies as subtext. “Earth is going to shake us off like fleas, and when it does, Earth will be fine.” I’ve long believed this, and instead of trying to use the setting to trick the audience in some way, it feels like it was done to show that wherever we go in the universe, we’re going to deal with these same basic human things. Family. Expectations. Fear. Pride. And once we go, the Earth will go on and rebuild and adapt. I think there are opportunities set up here that aren’t all fully explored, and that’s sort of frustrating, but also understandable. The story being told here is not about the sci-fi world. The story would work exactly the same, emotionally speaking, if it was set on Earth and the thing they’re transporting is a bear or a lion that has killed someone. That’s not to say the science fiction elements are just wallpaper. They’re not. It’s just that they aren’t explored after they’re established, and there’s a lot suggested here about what sort of stories could also be told.

Technically, there are things I really like and some scenes where it feels like they farmed a particular element out to a house that just couldn’t get it right. It’s uneven in terms of effects work, with the big stuff all pretty much handled well. It’s smaller things like some composites or some vistas that don’t quite come together. Shyamalan has a pretty solid eye for composition, and here, I like the way he finds a balance between matter-of-fact reality and science-fiction wonder in his approach to the world. I think the film’s generally well-staged and well-shot, especially considering one of the main characters spends a good percentage of his screen time trapped in the same spot. Jaden is not a guy you go to at this stage in his performing career if you want a whole rainbow of attitudes and characters. What I find interesting about him is how clenched he seems onscreen in both “Karate Kid” and this. He’s this snarl of nerves and tensions, gradually finding a way to assert his own voice and personality, and in both films, he builds towards a key transformative moment in which he proves himself capable and formidable. I’m not sure if the way things pay off here came from screenwriter Gary Whitta, M. Night Shayamalan, or from Smith himself, but whoever it was, they paid close attention to the audience’s reactions in a theater to “The Karate Kid,’ and they reach for a similar response here.

The film may be too scary for younger viewers, which makes sense thematically. The alien beasts that Kitai is forced to face on his adventure are meant to be a threat, and the key memory that Kitai keeps returning to over the course of the film is supposed to be enough to break him if he lets it. I ultimately decided against taking my own kids at seven and five, and I’d say anyone with kids under ten should take a look at the film first to know if you think your own kids will be okay with this level of intensity.

One thing that I find interesting about some of this year’s science fiction films is how clearly they reflect the religious and philosophical views of key creative players. I try not to carry a lot of people’s personal lives into a theater with me, but looking at both “Oblivion” and this film, I can see how someone who is interested in Scientology would be drawn to the material. Both films deal with the idea of personal evolution and overcoming our natural programming in order to move on to a higher level. Having said that, I don’t think either of these films are simply excuses to promote someone’s religion, and I’ll be curious to see if the people attacking this for that reason bring that same focus to “Ender’s Game” and its none-too-subtle parallels to Mormonism. My guess is that, like Shyamalan and the father-son Smith pairing, it’s an irresistible target, which would explain the almost unseemly glee that some people seem to be taking in trashing the film.

In the end, I think “After Earth” is a modest pleasure, but our media landscape now demands that we either destroy a film in a review or we have to canonize it. Enjoying a film and having a complex reaction to its merits and its flaws is evidently no longer allowed. All I know is that the very direct adventure story worked for me, and I think the film offers some very knowing examples of the way both parents and children have to adjust their thinking over the course of their relationship, wrapped up in a visually dynamic world that simply makes the stakes feel more urgent and that allow a fresh way into what are ultimately very universal ideas.
“After Earth” opens tomorrow.

Join The Discussion: Log In With

If it is a success, I’d love to see a well written sequel to Unbreakable…I still think the original film warrants a follow up, especially now that comic book films are all the rage in Hollywood.

By: Fuzzy Dunlop

05.30.2013 @ 9:25 PM

God yes. Unbreakable gets buried in the M. Night noise, but was a FANTASTIC character genesis story. Just remarkable.

By: Samuel

05.30.2013 @ 5:59 PM

I think it proves your point that this is the first I’ve heard anything about this being a Shyamalan movie.

Also, “he travels several miles to the torn-off tail section of their space shit” I hope this is not a typo, because that’s a movie I want to see.

By: velocityknown

05.30.2013 @ 6:11 PM

It sounds way more interesting than the existing one, doesn’t it?

By: Chris

05.30.2013 @ 6:16 PM

Curious about this. I’ll admit I’ve hoped for an M. Night comeback, but have been burned too often. But I feel like your review set the proper expectation — not a big-budget blockbuster, but a smaller scale sci-fi adventure for teens. Excited to see that.

By the way, has Smith ever confirmed he’s a Scientologist? I seem to remember him denying it in the past but admitting there were certain things he admired.

By: Brendan O'Brien

05.30.2013 @ 7:08 PM

I think that is why Drew chose the wording “someone who is interested in Scientology” as opposed to “follower of” or “believer in” or whatever religious people call themselves these days.

By: Chris

05.30.2013 @ 8:41 PM

Fair enough–was just curious about the wording.

Scientology may strike me as silly, but I liked Oblivion. Why people have knives out for this one confuses me; I understand being skeptical about Shyamalan (but also hopeful, because he’s directed some great films). But many critics enjoy tearing him apart way too much; and I think too many are eager to see Smith crash and burn (sad; he’s one of the most likable stars around).

By: Apocalypse Pooh

05.30.2013 @ 6:24 PM

This is why film critics shouldn’t accept offers to attend junkets at lavish locations and pal around with stars. After your “look how much I bonded with Will Smith” video, a video shot at the Virgin Spaceport – where you were flown at the studio’s dime – I don’t trust a word you’re saying. Roger Ebert warned against junkets, refused to attend them, and he retained his integrity. Old AICN habits from a former clerk at Dave’s Video die hard, it seems.

By: Donkey Hodey

05.30.2013 @ 9:54 PM

As someone who’s followed Drew’s reviews for the last decade I’ll volunteer that while I don’t always agree with him, I do more often than not and I’ve never though his reviews were purchased.

I’ve imagined that he goes into films looking for things to like more than things to dislike, and if anything that makes him a generally positive person, and less acerbic than others. I could be wrong as I’ve never met the guy, or even talked to him online, but I’ve read his stuff for a decade now, and the biggest thread seen through most if not all of them is his sincerity.

The guy doesn’t yet want to write Shyamalan off for good? That’s makes him more forgiving than, say, me. I gave up on him a long time ago. But Drew’s always seemed on the up and up to me, so maybe you can give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s done far less to exhaust it than Shyamalan has.

Meeting with the screenwriter less than two weeks before writing a review of the film? Shoddy.

By: Joe

05.31.2013 @ 12:29 AM

I saw this film months ago at Sony. Drew’s review is spot on. It’s not a great movie. In fact, it’s just okay. It sort of falls into this category of “this isn’t that bad” and “eh”. I’m kind of surprised what so many people think this film is… and haven’t seen it yet.

By: CinemaPsycho

05.31.2013 @ 6:21 AM

Press junkets and interviews are part of the game. Even Siskel and Ebert used to do interviews with stars and directors from film festivals on their old shows (apparently no one remembers that but me?).

My problem with After Earth is not M. Night but Jaden Smith. After watching his Letterman appearance in 2010, I vowed never to pay to see any film he stars in. It was like the Joaquin Phoenix thing, but for real. He couldn’t be bothered to actually interact with Dave and came off like a privileged little shit who didn’t care where he was or who he was talking to. He’s only a movie star because Daddy made him one. So if he doesn’t care, why should we? I’d rather spend my money on movies with real actors.

Having said that, it’s my money and I can easily spend it on whatever films I choose to spend it on. So I’m sure Sony won’t miss my 10 bucks that much. I’m just saying, not everyone is avoiding this film because of M. Night.

By: jeves23

05.30.2013 @ 6:44 PM

This is something I am mildly curious about, and will likely check out in the cheap theatre in a few months or so….

As to your comment about how “our media landscape now demands that we either destroy a film in a review or we have to canonize it” – I think that is very true. Which is odd considering just how middle of the road most Hollywood films are these days. To me, most of them are neither terrible nor great, and so I am suspicious when I see either of those two extremes in reviews. There are plenty of films that I like these days, but very few (from the Hollywood machine, anyway) that I Love.
It’s refreshing to read a review that is middle of the road and, seemingly, more honest.

By: ted

05.30.2013 @ 8:06 PM

So true I feel like the vast majority of films I see falls in a mid range where I dont have much to say about them either way. They’re fine. Which of course makes finding something that I totally fall for like Stories We Tell all the more exciting.

Drew personally I think youre reviews are great. There have been so many films this year that Im not sure I could write anything more about them than “Ya its fine.” Dont listen to these jerks in the comments.

By: Mark

05.31.2013 @ 8:11 PM

Mid range doesn’t exist on the Internet, where the only people who take the time to express an opinion either love a thing or hate it. It creates a severely skewed view of entertainment, in my opinion.

Ever notice when a genre film rates in the 70% range of RT or MC? The consensus tends to be that it’s awful. Not mediocre. Awful. I had some serious problems with Star Trek Into Darkness, but the chatter online would have me believe that I’m an idiot if I don’t hate that movie with every fiber of my being. And that film got pretty favorable reviews from critics.

By: Danger Mouse

05.30.2013 @ 6:45 PM

I saw this the other day and found it to be rather average sci-fi. My one nitpick was with Jaden and his acting. At one point, he’s yelling at his father and found it completely fake strangely enough (I mean, seriously, how many of us have railed against our fathers every now and then).

By: steelerguy_3

05.30.2013 @ 7:17 PM

Secondly, Im encouraged by your review, I wanted to know if this movie was worth seeing apart from all M. Night associations, and Im glad you are able to separate any past feelings of his movies from how you judge this one. I value your input above lots of other critics since I found your reviews over a year ago. Keep up the good work and I look forward to seeing your thoughts on Monsters University and Man of Steel!

By: steelerguy_3

05.30.2013 @ 7:19 PM

First part of this cut off, it said, I didnt know you were so close to me! I live in Las Cruces,NM and didnt realize you were subjected to staying in El Paso, im so sorry! haha

By: Nick

05.30.2013 @ 7:19 PM

This looked terrible just from the trailers. Nothing about it makes me wanna see it. And the current 13% positive rating at Rotten Tomatoes is backing that up. Just bring on Man of Steel and Pacific Rim already.

By: Nick

05.30.2013 @ 8:59 PM

Maybe. Or it could be that a lot of people just don’t like it. Personally I’m far more curious about the critical reaction to the film than I am about the actual film itself.

By: David Slate

05.30.2013 @ 9:40 PM

Why are you such a RT zombie? Most critics these days are hipsters douchebags.

By: CinemaPsycho

05.31.2013 @ 6:15 AM

Rotten Tomatoes is for people who value the herd mentality more than their own opinions. I will keep saying this until people finally understand it.

By: Fire Tim

05.30.2013 @ 7:26 PM

Great review. It has been getting a lot of hate from people who haven’t seen it and I feel like it’s because such high-profile stars that folks feel that they have to either love it or hate it. I’ll probably skip it AND it’ll make a ton overseas like most sci-fi films these days. Anyway, keep up the good work Drew.

By: synack1138

05.30.2013 @ 7:46 PM

Drew, how did M. Night fair? His movies for better or worst, have a style, was it present or not?

By: dado72

05.30.2013 @ 8:09 PM

Sorry to say it Drew, but this review was Knowlesesque. Gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume they paid you off or something. Just yeesh.

By: Chris

05.30.2013 @ 8:45 PM

If I paid a critic off, I’d expect something nicer than a B-.

There have been plenty of films Drew’s covered where he’s interviewed the cast and panned the film in his review. And this is hardly a rave. I haven’t seen the film; I’m not too interested. But from the trailers and this review, I can absolutely understand what type of movie this is.

Why shit on someone’s writing just because you can’t do it?

By: WillOfMars

05.30.2013 @ 8:57 PM

If Drew was a paid critic…wouldn’t his review have been more, I dunno, crazy positive? If I was going through the trouble of paying someone to say good things about my movie a review that comes down to “You know what? I liked it.” is not the type of review I would want to have paid for.

By: Mark

05.31.2013 @ 8:20 PM

These critical comments of Drew are so telling.

I’m not an M. Night apologist. If anything, I tend to be guilty of the “piling on” that Drew cites in his review.

But the overt hostility shown in the comment section tends to validate Drew’s viewpoint that haters have a vested interest in making sure the thing they hate is universally panned. Dissenters will not be tolerated.

By: dado72

05.30.2013 @ 8:19 PM

You bend over backwards to find something praiseworthy in a performance that has been roundly panned by EVERY review – including the positive ones. It’s weak writing man, and the faint praise only makes Jaden look worse. Just looking for an explanation for such a tedious and rationalizing (is that a thing?) review. Impugning your honor was the lesser of evils.

By: dado72

05.30.2013 @ 8:23 PM

The point is i want to be able to trust your review BEFORE i see the movie. And this entire review, with the constant digressive rationalizations and water carrying for MNS after a loooooong string of really really bad movies (which followed a couple mediocre ones). Why?

By: Will of Mars

05.30.2013 @ 9:00 PM

Um…you know you don’t HAVE to see the movie DADO72? The way you type makes it seem like someone is putting a gun to your head to see the movie, but you’d rather see a good one before the guy pulls the trigger.

By: GG2108

05.31.2013 @ 8:33 AM

DADO72 is a huge tool

By: potty break

05.30.2013 @ 8:23 PM

As a wise man once said, “I have a bad feeling about this!”. We’re getting a lot of sci-fi films this year that are so-so (“Oblivion”, “Star Trek”) and the box office is so-so for them. I hope they don’t put semi-serious sci-fi back in cryosleep.

By: DKT

05.30.2013 @ 8:37 PM

My God, the amount of trolls that come out from under the bridge sometimes. Don’t let them get too much of your goat, Drew.

Thanks for the review. I’m curious about this one – moreso now, as I’d mostly written it off. I appreciate knowing there’s no big twist, and I hope M. Nigh Shyamalan can find his A-game again soon. This may not be it, but it looks like it’s something different, and he did okay by it. (Though, Dear God, Cypher Raige? Really?)

By: John

05.30.2013 @ 8:37 PM

How many of you bums saw the movie? Seriously. Stop bitching about the guy’s opinion when you’re in no place to enter any type of discussion about the films’s merits.

By: AndyT

05.30.2013 @ 8:38 PM

Drew,

Thank you for the review. I was not sure whether I would see this one in the theater and now I am strongly leaning toward. I liked your evocation of movies such as “Young Sherlock Holmes” and “Goonies” which bring back fond memories. I think that you hit the right note when you say that today it doesn’t seem possible to just “like” something. Do we really need to be in a world where everything is either “awesome” or “crap”? I find that I like most movies that I see. They are neither the “greatest thing ever” or “soul crushing awful”. Maybe I just look for the positive and enjoyable in most entertainment since the real world today is so discouraging.

Also, don’t listen to the whiners and jerks, they apparently can’t tell the difference between being polite and professional(as a decent person should be) in your work doing interviews and your reviews.

By: HistoryofMatt

05.30.2013 @ 8:46 PM

Here, here!!!

By: Andy T

05.30.2013 @ 9:17 PM

Thanks Drew, that is a film that I am fond of from that period, but certainly don’t think it was fantastic. If AE is even close to Enemy Mine then it will be enjoyable.

By: Chris

05.30.2013 @ 8:39 PM

Drew, I’ve been reading you off and on for over a decade, and now that Ebert’s gone, you’re one of the few reviewers I tend to trust. (I love to read Faraci, but only because he can write, not because he’s right.) For some reason, my engagement with your writing over the years makes me feel the need to tell the wankers and trolls populating this discussion thread at the moment to take a long walk off a short pier.

I’ll put it this way: I have zero interest in After Earth, and won’t even be seeing it as a rental, but good grief, guys, hasn’t Drew earned a bit more respect than this warrantless accusation bullshit suggests?

Keep doing what you’re doing, Drew. There are plenty of us out here who look for it everyday.

By: HistoryofMatt

05.30.2013 @ 8:42 PM

Here, here!!!

By: jeves23

05.31.2013 @ 1:22 AM

Agreed – I have been reading Drew for 10+ years, and even though I have often disagreed with his opinions on several points, I have always found that his reviews and opinion pieces are fair and balanced. He is not often given over to hyperbole, and thus when he raves or rages, I know that something has really affected him. Good or bad.
So if he gives it a B-, even if in the end I do not agree with that grade, I am pretty sure that to him the film earned it fair and square.

By: HistoryofMatt

05.30.2013 @ 8:40 PM

So, many of you are shitting on Drew because:

1) He had to fight through horrible LA traffic to attend a catered event

2) This event was put on by the studio to allow the film press to speak to the actors, writers, etc.

3) As the event, Drew spoke to some of the actors and the writer about the film and their experience making it.

Wow. I mean… wow. This is incredible, how now you can attack someone for doing their job.

I mean, seriously… do you idiots not understand why junkets are done?

It’s so the actors, writers, etc. can all be at the same place, at the same time, to give out the interviews and such needed to promote the film. Otherwise, they’re all spread out over the country and the world working on new projects started since the film at the junket stopped shooting probably 6 months prior.

As for Pooh, quoting Ebert in that way… like Ebert was some kind of moral equivalent to Jesus amongst film critics, let me burst your bubble, pal: Ebert could be a vindictive prick.

Ebert held grudges. Ebert could also completely miss the point of an entire film and then write a negative review of that film because of how he mis-remembers reading a book 30 years ago. Don’t believe me? Go read his 2.5 star review for Fellowship of the Ring.

What’s even more ridiculous:

NONE OF YOU PEOPLE HAVE SEEN THE FILM!

You’re all missing the point of the review, which to me seems fair & just:

That point is so many critics, much like many of y’all, are prejudging the film because of who directed it and possibly who is acting in it.

Remember how many of us reacted to the first couple of Cruise films after the “couch jumping incident?”

Or how so many were ready to tear James Cameron apart for Titanic, without having seen it?

It’s what they, and you, are doing now.

Is AE gonna be the greatest film ever? Nope, probably not.

Is it gonna be the worst film ever? Nope, probably not.

Can it possibly be a fun popcorn film with a good message that you can enjoy for 2 hours at a $5 Saturday matinee?

That is entirely possible.

Some of y’all seriously need to gain a little perspective and readjust your personal biases.

Look, while I am a fan of Drew’s criticism and trust him more that most, he’s not infallible, either. So while he likes this film, you may not, and that’s okay.

I mean, he was one of maybe three critics to give the Love Guru a good review, so we know he’s fallible. ;-)

But to call the guy’s credibility and integrity into question because he wrote a good review of a film you haven’t seen yet but that you desperately want to be bad?

That says a lot more about YOU than it does him.

Remember… it’s OKAY to disagree.

And disagreement, especially on something like this, doesn’t give you the right to attack his character.

Especially when, unlike with other critics, you don’t even have circumstantial evidence that he’s ever been “on the take.”

Well said Historyofmatt. Thank you for bringing maturity ang logic to a discussion that had become juvenile and small minded. Movies are to be enjoyed … Exhale.

By: Adam Motycka

05.30.2013 @ 8:44 PM

I generally find my cinematic tastes very much in line with yours Drew, and this review makes me excited to see a father-son oriented sci-fi film. I don’t see why people are so concerned with reviewers attending junkets and what not. You get a short time to sit down with the stars, and it helps drive traffic to the site, which in turn allows you to continue to do what you do. Anyone who follows you on twitter understands your trip to El Paso wasn’t the most fun-filled thing you’ve ever done. You’ve always been very fair with your reviews, and it’s very much appreciated by us film fans who aren’t completely writing off films due to what names are behind a film.

By: JoeK

05.30.2013 @ 9:01 PM

Your observations about Night are unfortunately spot on. For a segment of observers out there he is a reflexive punching bag. Even the brain-dead morning team on our local sports radio station was making sport of verbally knifing the guy and his new movie this morning as if they were speaking from a position of authority.

Another point comes to mind when you talk about the type of movie this apparently is and it I read it somewhere when The Croods was released and it was about how modern movies with young protagonists (or at least those explicitly marketed as “family” movies) don’t really depict kids having their adventure(s) on their own…the parents are almost always shoulder to shoulder with them instead of bookends or check-ins on the proceedings. It says a lot about the new culture of childhood and informs a lot of perception about what appeals to whom anymore and also apparently dictates what gets made in a way that doesn’t benefit audiences like it used to.

By: jeves23

05.31.2013 @ 1:30 AM

I think part of that is this new cultural ideal that has sprouted up where parents need to be their kids’ friends. It is not just about observing or babysitting to keep them safe anymore.
Perhaps it is an offshoot of the current youth obsession of Western culture.

By: Gentlemaniacal

05.31.2013 @ 12:47 PM

I Declare War is a really good current film about kids playing / having an adventure without adult supervision. It is also a clearly a tribute to the writer/director’s childhood memories of playing unsupervised in the 80’s. It is not the work of a early 20’s filmaker.

Super 8 is the last major film I can think of in this genre, and that is obviously an homage to the 80’s films you are referencing.

By: JonnyP

05.30.2013 @ 9:11 PM

Great review. I think it must be very difficult to write about something that isn’t great or terrible. I’m all for the occasional “solid” movie going experience and I keep wanting M. Night to come back. I really enjoyed his first few movies just as much as I hated The Happening and The Last Airbender.

I have a 9-year-old and I’m thinking of taking him to this because of the father-son dynamic. I know you said you weren’t sure about brining kids under 10. Was that due to the violence or adult themes or just scariness?

By: Kapday

06.09.2013 @ 7:46 AM

I took my 10 and 11year old girly-girls, and they love it. I am a protective mom, and I recommend this film for kids 9 and up, who like Drew said, are not afraid of scary animals or realistic alien creatures. It doesn’t have any sex or profanity, which is such a relief.

By: Monty Jack

05.30.2013 @ 9:17 PM

“Cypher Raige”? “Kitai Raige”? How can ANYONE write down names like that and actually INTEND them to make it through to the final draft of the screenplay?

By: Montyjacksucks

05.30.2013 @ 9:36 PM

I have no intention of seeing this film. But your obsession with crappy Disney cartoons is lame and sickeningly hypocritical.

By: Barry Convex

05.31.2013 @ 2:29 AM

I believe Monty Jack’s obsession is with cheese.

By: Monty Jack

05.31.2013 @ 1:28 PM

Very mature.

By: Thomas

05.30.2013 @ 9:40 PM

Drew, the reason you are getting called out for this ponderous, defensive essay, is because you spend most of it trying to convince you (and us) that the movie isn’t that bad.

Wouldn’t you agree calling the movie a “modest pleasure” is the faintest of praise?

This review reads like a thumbs down to me.

Would you really tell a friend to go see this? My feeling is you wouldn’t.

And you really should consider disclosing whatever perks or access or other goodies you get from studios. It’s a little something called integrity.

By: Randy

05.31.2013 @ 12:31 AM

Thomas, have you seen it? How do you know if it’s bad or not?

By: sharte

05.30.2013 @ 9:42 PM

Wow a positive review from a guy that was flown to the set and given all kinds of access. What is this 1998 AICN?

By: Bsum

05.30.2013 @ 9:50 PM

I’m curious about the parallels to Mormonism in Ender’s Game. I see them in Alvin Maker, but I can’t see them in Ender’s Game.

By: ovnio

05.31.2013 @ 12:00 AM

Having seen it, and being a huge fan of Shyamalan’s first four movies, I’d say it’s better than his last three (The Happening, Airbender and Lady in the Water).

It starts off clunky but it gets better as it goes along, kind of like Jaden’s performance. It’s the first movie of his (Jaden’s) where I haven’t really bought him as an actor for a while.

Will Smith is great, but he usually is.

Nice to see a shout-out (of sorts) to “The Man Who Hears Voices”. It’s a really interesting look at Shyamalan’s creative process (and, arguably, the beginning of his Hollywood decline) as well as the clustercuss that was the “Lady in the water” shoot.

Anyway, I’d recommend watching “Now you see me” first, but this wasn’t bad.

By: ovnio

05.31.2013 @ 12:01 AM

Having seen it, and being a huge fan of Shyamalan’s first four movies, I’d say it’s better than his last three (The Happening, Airbender and Lady in the Water).

It starts off clunky but it gets better as it goes along, kind of like Jaden’s performance. It’s the first movie of his (Jaden’s) where I haven’t really bought him as an actor for a while.

Will Smith is great, but he usually is.

Nice to see a shout-out (of sorts) to “The Man Who Hears Voices”. It’s a really interesting look at Shyamalan’s creative process (and, arguably, the beginning of his Hollywood decline) as well as the clustercuss that was the “Lady in the water” shoot.

Anyway, I’d recommend watching “Now you see me” first, but this wasn’t bad.

By: Ogami Itto

06.02.2013 @ 7:47 PM

By Shyamalan’s first four movies do you mean “Praying with Anger”, “Wide Awake”, “The Sixth Sense”, and “Unbreakable”.

By: ovnio

06.02.2013 @ 8:04 PM

YES!

“Wide Awake” in particular is a small masterpiece. Leary and O’Donnell certainly deserved far more recognition than they got. I’d rather have a sequel to this one rather than one to “Unbreakable”, to be honest.

Just kidding, I meant movies 3-6.

By: Ogami Itto

06.03.2013 @ 1:42 AM

Yeah, I thought so; I was just being snarky.

I really liked “The Sixth Sense” and “Unbreakable” (I thought it was supposed to be a trilogy?), and sorta liked “Signs” even though the aliens’ vulnerability was inane.

By: james

05.31.2013 @ 12:29 AM

why all the anger,hard to criticized a review until we’ve seen it,but drew you should keep your cool while talking back to people here,your great at your job and we love the site and your brought over a lot of people who’ve enjoyed your work on AICN to this site,but a journalist who has a great way with words there’s no need for name calling here

By: Joe

05.31.2013 @ 12:29 AM

Write a comment…I saw this film months ago at Sony. Drew’s review is spot on. It’s not a great movie. In fact, it’s just okay. It sort of falls into this category of “this isn’t that bad” and “eh”. I’m kind of surprised what so many people think this film is… and haven’t seen it yet.

By: Hatfield

05.31.2013 @ 3:01 AM

Reading through these comments, the people bitching about the ways in which Drew was allegedly “bought off” are all starting to sound alike. That is, idiotic. But I wonder if they’re one person commenting over and over again because they think it’s funny?

By: James

05.31.2013 @ 5:00 AM

Ugh when did this forum transform into the IMDB-eque quality on display here? Should probably shut down the comments section as people really don’t deserve to express their opinions.

Can’t wait for the next Nolan, Spielberg, (insert successful director) review – and read all the “OMG overrated hack” comments.

By: David

05.31.2013 @ 6:34 PM

Well, there was people who started to bash Nolan when TDKR came out.

By: Matt R

05.31.2013 @ 5:13 AM

Thank you, Drew. Thank you for being an ACTUAL movie reviewer, and not someone who pretends to be one. For being someone who (god forbid) actually reviews an M Night Shyamalan film as a film, and not use it as an excuse to talk amazing amounts of hateful shit about him. You are SO right about this huge group of people who obviously want to hate him. They ENJOY hating him. Do they not realize how sociopathic that is? This is a man they’ve never met, who has never done anything personally to them, and who has only been doing his job.

In one of your comments you said that the (ridiculous) 13% on Rotton Tomatoes was basically a forgone conclusion. These piece of shit “reviewers” actually actively WANT this movie to fail. Before they’ve even seen it!! Over the last few weeks I have read so many horribly negative comments about this film, and the people saying them haven’t even seen it yet. If that isn’t a sociopathic and mentally unstable way of thinking, I don’t know what is.

I absolutely LOVE Mr. Shyamalan’s films, but even I realize that “Airbender” and “The Happening” were no good. So what? So the guy made a few shitty films, damn near every single filmmaker alive has done that!

Anyway, thank you Drew for being one of the few left of your kind. A real, honest-to-god FILM critic. Not a PERSON critic.

By: Mark

05.31.2013 @ 8:44 PM

He didn’t just make some shitty films. He’s had a string of films that fail in ways that the first few of his films don’t. And that is perplexing. When I watch Airbender or The Happening, the words that come out of the actors’ mouths (words M. Night himself wrote) do not sound like the words of the same screenwriter who wrote the “coming out” scene in 6th Sense. Or the table banter about the first Alien sighting in Signs. Where is that writer?

I would welcome M. Night returning to form eventually, but with each subsequent film that does not accomplish that, if even in a small way, the more people will write him off entirely.

He’s made some of my favorite movies ever. He’s also earned at least a fair bit of the criticism he’s getting now.

By: Ogami Itto

06.03.2013 @ 1:51 AM

I think the negative critical reaction is ridiculously hyperbolic and based not on the film’s quality so much as an antipathy toward M. Knight’s perceived arrogance, as well as Smith’s “nepotism”.

I’d personally give the movie a “C” since it’s forgettable and harmless, but I just don’t understand all the vitriol out there.

It’s not the wost movie ever made as some have said, it’s merely mediocre.

By: Wires

05.31.2013 @ 10:47 AM

Rise above it Drew, the derogatory comments are unfounded and down right stupid. Anyone of normal intelligence reading your reviews can see your integrity and honesty clear as day. Thank you and keep up the good work :)

By: Hammertime

05.31.2013 @ 2:04 PM

I for one think Drew is justified in his attitude towards the trolls. I see Drew’s tweets in the middle of the night, and understand how long his days are. To put all the time and work into a review like this, and have people rip into him (about a movie they haven’t seen!) would piss me off too.

And besides, its refreshing to read someone who sees their work as important enough to defend.

By: Adam S.

05.31.2013 @ 8:34 PM

This review is precisely why Drew is the most thoughtful film critic today. The guy is simply the best.

By: drewlicious

06.01.2013 @ 12:31 AM

The explanation for how Shyamalan has earned his stigma is a very simple one: he made incredibly shitty movies for almost ten years straight. Everything after “Signs” is an unwatchable mess.

By: janedoe

06.01.2013 @ 3:37 PM

stop using logic and evidence man. it has no place here. better to use passive aggressive language to insult other critics’ integrity for being a)sheeple or b)NMS haterz. next time Drew just review the damn movie instead of carrying water for complete strangers who dont need your help with rationalizations and barely veiled insults. you know damn well why people go into an MNS movie with trepedation (hint: same with Emmerich and Bol) and why people accuse WS of nepotism (because thats exactly why this movie was made in the first place. again: facts).

By: janedoe

06.01.2013 @ 3:42 PM

Oh and saying you’re “baffled” by the anticipation of yet another MNS disaster is utter bullshit. You are not “baffled” or “perplexed” or “surprised”. No one is. If everyone went in expecting some kind of masterpiece from him, after a decade of films that run the gamut from meh to utter garbage, THAT would be “baffling”. Utterly disingenuous.

By: Cousin Larry Appleton

06.02.2013 @ 6:28 AM

While I appreciate the need/desire to defend your review, I actually find some of your comments more troubling than the review itself.

Two comments in particular irk me:

“That 13% is ridiculous. It was also set in stone before people saw the film.”
&
“Do you need it to be terrible? Do you need the herd to be right?”

These comments imply that it’s nigh-impossible for a large number of critics to disagree with you. It also implies that most critics are (in a roundabout way) guilty of the the lack of integrity that so many commenters are accusing you of.

I’ve actually read a large number of those RT reviews and almost all of them seem genuine in their dislike, and most of them point out the same shortcomings. That you disagree with their take is fine, but it seems unfair to imply that your opinion is correct, and everyone else is bleating.

Having said that, I’m all for you taking some of these other idiots commenters to task. To claim that you’ve been “paid off” is insulting, and shows a fundamental lack of how things like press junkets and film marketing works…

By: RupertPupkin

06.02.2013 @ 8:49 AM

Drew

I must say I am really surprised. Normally, I am pretty in sync with your thoughts on films with only the occasional digression. But your last 2 reviews of Hangover 3 and now After Earth make me wonder if we watched the same films. Hangover 3 was a text book lesson for laziness in principals involved in collecting a paycheck and with a complete and utter disregard for what is supposed to be a comedy franchise and not an action film. And AFTER EARTH is an unmitigated disaster that Sony deserves everything it loses. Will Smith over the last 8 years or so has this strange thing of mostly choosing films that are all about saving the Earth &/or the human race. He has completely lost his way and that is the fault of yes men like James Lasseter and a studio so craving another franchise from him that they will not say no. I have no problem with nepotism when your family is talented. Jaden cannot act! The public at large know they are being force-fed by a father desperate to have his kids be stars and a studio willing to piss away $150 million on a turkey because they are afraid to say no to the star. I wish the film was laughingly bad Sci-Fi like Battlefield Earth, but that was nowhere to be found. It was just dull with characters you care nothing about. And when I think that Will turned down Django Unchained to do this, that is what makes me say he needs better advisors and less Yes Men

By: Ogami Itto

06.02.2013 @ 8:06 PM

Will Smith turned down DJANGO because he wasn’t the lead actor (read: star). That’s basically what Smith has said in interviews.

By: Joseph

06.03.2013 @ 4:20 PM

I have watched the accusations against Drew in the comments the past couple weeks. I have to say that while I think it’s ridiculous to say he is being paid off for his reviews, I do think that as a human being it would be difficult to not be at least subconsciously influenced by having pleasant interactions with the people behind the film you are reviewing.

So I was going to say as much last Friday given Drew’s (qualified) positive review of a film most other crtiics were calling one of the worst of the year. I decided against it, and am glad I did, because I saw it with my daughter on Saturday and have to say I totally agree with Drew’s review. The film was a perfectly enjoyable summer action flick, and the venom that is being launched at it really makes no sense, unless the critics truly do either have it out for M Night and/or are for whatever reason resentful that Will Smith had the gall to cast his son. Jaden wasn’t great in the film, but he didn’t ruin it, and my daughter and I had a good time with it.

By: Kapday

06.09.2013 @ 6:51 AM

Thank you Drew for that honest review. My family and I just saw the movie, despite the overwhelming negative reviews. We were absolutely shocked at how good the movie actually is. We absolutely loved it. We have 2 girls, 10 and 11. They also loved it, and were not particularly scared. It was refreshing to find an exciting, action, sci-fi movie, absent of sex and profanity. The movie takes you on a father and son sci-fi thrill-ride. We had a great time. I wish all the Smith-Shayamalan haters would stop lying about this movie. Go see it. You won’t be sorry.